| Matter of Gustave-Francois v Francois |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07425 [88 AD3d 881] |
| October 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Carline Gustave-Francois,Respondent, v Herod Francois, Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and ScottShorr of counsel), for respondent.
In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals froman order of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated January 18, 2011, whichdenied his objections to an order of the same court (LaFreniere, S.M.), dated November 4, 2010,denying his motion to vacate a prior order of support dated June 22, 2010, which, upon hisdefault in appearing at a hearing, granted the mother's petition and set his child supportobligation at the sum of $770 per month.
Ordered that the order dated January 18, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
While this Court prefers to resolve matters concerning child support on the merits, it is stillnecessary for a party seeking to vacate an order entered upon default to show that there was areasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Matter of Proctor-Shields vShields, 74 AD3d 1347 [2010]; Matter of Coates v Lee, 32 AD3d 539 [2006]). Here, the fatheroffered no excuse for his failure to appear at a hearing. Thus, the Family Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying the father's objections to the order dated November 4, 2010,denying his motion to vacate a prior order of support entered upon his default.
Since the father failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not reach theissue of whether he presented a potentially meritorious defense. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Austin andSgroi, JJ., concur.